<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:49 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manu@netbsd.org" target="_blank">manu@netbsd.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">Justin Clift <<a href="mailto:jclift@redhat.com">jclift@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> > Towards this we need some extensions to gfapi that can handle object<br>
> >based operations. Meaning, instead of using full paths or relative paths<br>
</div><div class="im">> > rom cwd, it is required that we can work with APIs, like the *at POSIX<br>
> > variants, to be able to create, lookup, open etc. files and directories.<br>
> <snip><br>
><br>
> Any idea if this would impact our *BSD compatibility? :)<br>
<br>
</div>NetBSD 6.1 only have partial linkat(2). NetBSD-current (will-be<br>
NetBSD-7.0) has all extended API set 2, except fexecve(2) and O_EXEC for<br>
which no consensus was reached on how to implment it securely.<br>
<br>
In a nutshell, switching to *at() kills NetBSD compatibility until next<br>
major release, but I already know it will be restored at that time.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The context here is the POSIX-"like" style of API exposed by GFAPI, and not dependent on what syscalls the platform provides. Good to know (separately) that the *at() syscalls will be supported in NetBSD in sometime.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Avati</div></div></div></div>